IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 RAMPAL AND ANOTHER ……Appellants Vs STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR, SECTOR 12, FARIDABAD AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Abhishek Yadav, D.A.G., Haryana.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

CM No.2758-CI of 2025 By way of present application, prayer has been made for condoning the delay of 4572 days in filing the present Regular First Appeal.

Notice of the said application was issued on 22.12.2025 by this Court. Learned State counsel has failed to file reply to the application despite been afforded sufficient opportunity.

Concededly, the other similarly situated landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to the land situated in revenue estate i.e. villages Fajjupur Majra Neemka, Neemka, Faridpur, Bhatola and Murtazapur, Tehsil and District Faridabad to the tune of Rs.2509/-, Rs.2186/-, Rs.1778/-, Rs.2396/- and Rs.2376/- per square yard, respectively along with solatium and other statutory benefits. Based thereupon and applying the principle of parity, besides grant of just and fair compensation, the landowners/applicants being similarly situated are entitled for grant of similar amount of compensation, however, without any payment of interest for the period of delay in fling the present review application. In this regard reliance can be placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another” reported as “2020 (19) SCC 599” and the latest exposition of law laid down in Mohar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector & Ors. reported as “2023 INSC 1019” whereby, delay of 12 years and 353 days was condoned to accord parity between similarly placed landowners albeit no interest was awarded for delayed period. The relevant portion thereof is extracted hereunder:-

“12. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the appellants are entitled to seek parity with their co-villagers in the grant of compensation for their acquired land. This Court has consistently held in a catena of decisions that the inordinate delay in filing appeal in compensatory matters, per se, may not be fatal as the rights and equities between the parties can be well balanced by denying the statutory benefits, such as interest for the delayed period. We are thus of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the first appeal(s) could be condoned subject to the condition that the appellants would not be entitled to enure undue benefit for the delayed period. We grant such indulgence in the appellant's favour also for the reason that a batch of first appeals at the instance of other land owners was still pending consideration before the High Court. All that the High Court ought to have emphatically denied to the late-comers was the benefit of interest including on the solatium, under Section 34 of the Act for the period from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court till the filing of the first appeals.”

In view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as contents of the application, the same is allowed and delay of 4572 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 22.01.2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Faridabad-cum-Reference Court whereby Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 preferred at the instance of appellants/landowners was partly allowed while awarding them compensation @ Rs.1052/- per square yard qua the acquired land along with other statutory benefits/interest in their favour.

[2]. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter